Leadership in small online collaborative learning groups: a distributed perspective

We examined emergent leadership in small online collaborative learning groups of pre-service math and science teachers. Groups worked online to design interdisciplinary instructional units. We employed a distributed leadership framework (Spillane, 2007) and adapted a coding system previously developed by Li, et al. (2007) to determine that group leadership was highly distributed among participants and to illustrate that leadership emerged through different forms of participation described in this paper. Findings help validate the theoretical concept of distributed small-group cognition and lead to interesting research questions regarding the design and scaffolding of small-group learning online. Introduction The nature and quality of leadership in small groups and its effects on group outcomes has been studied for many years by researchers in different disciplines and across many varied contexts and age levels (e.g. Chemers, 2000; Eby 2003; Hare 2000; Kozlowski & Ilgen 2006; Li et. al, 2007; Mumford 2000, Scribner 2007). But the role of leadership within small collaborative learning groups in authentic instructional settings has explicitly been examined very infrequently (Kim et. al, 2007; Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007). That there is little leadership research in small group instruction, despite an enormous literature on peer learning in small groups (O’Donnell, Reeve, & Smith, 2007), is not surprising, because small group instruction is typically scaffolded or scripted (O’Donnell et al., 2007), designed so that students achieve goals without relying on the emergent leadership skills of group members. Yet as emphasis on group cognition increases in the larger world (Stahl, 2006), it becomes increasingly important to understand and develop students’ small-group leadership skills as preparation for later life. Moreover, as the need for web-based collaboration accelerates, it becomes increasingly important to understand small group leadership in online environments. Accordingly, this study examined the emergence of leadership within five small math-science interdisciplinary teams who collaborated for two months to complete an instructional design assignment made in a learning-science course for advanced pre-service secondary teachers. The teams conducted a large percentage of their work online using a collaborative whiteboard not unlike many commercial whiteboard tools available today. These groups were randomly constituted, received the same general design assignment, used identical technological tools, and were minimally scaffolded as needed by instructors. This setup provided an excellent “natural experiment” enabling us to observe emergence of leadership in small learning groups that experienced varying degrees of success. Theories of leadership in corporate (Northouse, 2007) and school–administrative contexts (Spillane, 2007) provide useful frameworks for understanding leadership’s essential role in small collaborative learning groups. Leadership can be emergent or assigned (Northouse, 2007). It can also be thought of as trait-based (Eby, 2003) or as a set of skills that can be learned (Northouse, 2007). Some perspectives emphasize its situatedness and that some people are more effective leaders in certain contexts (Northouse, 2007). Spillane (2007) proposed a framework of distributed leadership which places leadership, not in discrete actions of and reactions to particular leaders, but in the spread of interactions across group members and tools over time. Adapting Spillane’s definition to the small group, we define leadership as distributed activities tied to the core work of groups that are designed by group members to influence the motivation, knowledge, affect, or practice of other members and that are likely understood by group members as intended to influence their motivation, knowledge, affect, or practices. A distributed perspective on leadership links to distributed cognition (Hutchins, 1995; Pea, 1993) and activity theory (Engeström, 1999; Leont’ev, 1981) through an emphasis on interactions among community members and artifacts. Where leadership has often been conceptualized as residing in one or two people and as being assigned, in this study we hypothesized that leadership would emerge as a distributed and self-organizing entity across group members. We further postulated that patterns in the distribution of leadership behavior would differ for successful versus less successful teams. In addition, based on previous findings from research on collaborative learning that show the influence of status and secondary characteristics such as gender and minority group membership (Chemers, 2000), and roles among participants such as bystanding (Hudson & Bruckman, 2004) or social loafing (e.g., O’Donnell et al., 2007), we speculated that leadership functions would not be distributed equally for all group members, but that different individuals would contribute different amounts and forms of leadership. We also were interested in defining the leadership roles of the instructors: in what ways might they afford or constrain emergence of student leadership and how did they compensate for leadership weaknesses in groups that struggled? Methodology Data Source Data analyzed in this study were collected with the STELLAR online course development system (e.g., Derry et al., 2005). We examined five interdisciplinary math and science collaborative groups from a learningscience course taught in Fall of 2004 for pre-service teachers at a large Midwestern university. There were a total of 25 students in the class, 8 males and 17 females. Of the male students 3 were science majors and 5 were math, while 11 of the female students were science majors, 5 were math and one was a math and science major. All groups included both majors and both male and female members. The groups interacted primarily through an asynchronous whiteboard where they collaborated for much of one academic semester to design an instructional unit for a topic and grade level chosen by their group. This whiteboard allowed any member of a group to post a proposal for their project. Only the poster could edit his or her proposal, but all group members could comment and suggest edits and rate all proposals. The groups also met face-to-face several times during the activity, but the whiteboard supported much of their work, which occurred largely online between meetings. The whiteboard posts varied widely in length, but a significant percentage of proposals and comments were lengthy and thoughtful. The online course environment provided deadlines, and the setup of the whiteboard interface reminded students to justify their instructional designs with learning-sciences concepts, the main topics of the course. No other interventions were implemented to scaffold leadership in groups other than the instructors’ (primarily one teaching assistant) interacting with groups to guide them as needed. Groups completed a problem-based learning (PBL) activity that comprised three iterations, each lasting 2-3 weeks and focusing on a different step of the backward design approach (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005): 1. define instructional goals; 2. develop assessments; and 3. design instructional activities. Descriptive Data for Groups While all groups were successful in meeting the collaborative goals of the PBL activity, some groups demonstrated a higher degree of success than others. In table 1 below we approximately organize groups from high (Group 1) to low (Group 5) based on instructors’ nomination, average (across iterations) score given for their instructional design projects (PBL score), and average of the group members’ satisfaction with the PBL assignment on a scale of 1 – 5, with a rating of 1 indicating high satisfaction. For informational purposes we also include data on individual achievement in the course, although this particular paper focuses only on the product of group cognition. We also supply the total number of valid posts, including comments and proposals, made within each group. “Valid posts” eliminate entries that were made only as result of a student’s repeatedly “saving” work being composed online. Table 1: Group ranked by grades and satisfaction ratings. Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Average satisfaction rating 1.4 2.0 1.5 1.8 2.5 Average PBL score 97 97 92 90 88 Average Individual score 93 97 90 95 92 Total number of group whiteboard posts 71 105 65 40 40 Coding All posts to the whiteboard were coded with a set of leadership moves based on a well-explicated framework developed and vetted by Li, et. al (2007) to study the emergence of leadership in children’s face-toface discussion groups. Building on this framework, we adapted our coding categories to better capture the distinct patterns that emerged in our online data and context. Table 2 describes each code and provides an example of a coded post. Entire posts by individual group members were coded; a single post may receive multiple codes. One successful group and one weaker group were first coded and codes were found to have 94% reliability between coders (the authors). The refined framework was then applied by the first author to all posts for all five groups. Table 2: Coding framework adapted from Li, et. al (2007) Code Description Example Acknowledgement/Affective (A/A) Positive: Using language in a way likely to motivate or inspire Negative: Using language in a negative or critical way -I liked your expanded explanation it was considerably clearer than mine! Thanks. -That sounds whimpy . . . Argument Development (AD) Soliciting reasons, evidence, and clarification from others; extending others' arguments through elaborating on them or making comments about them. Holding group accountable for justifying their reasons. Are these final reports done completely individually? What kind of guidelines will the students be receiving-a list of questions that they will answer in essay form? Or something else? And once again, there needs to be better learning science connections. Seeking Input (SI) Looking for general input from other members of the group; seeking help, advice, ideas on the work I've tried to clarify the graphic organizer part. If anyone has any other ideas about how to do it, let me know. Knowledge contribution (KC) Contributing academic knowledge working toward the academic goal of the project by contributing new ideas and extending meaning (ie., from personal reading or research) Graphic organizers are a type of assessment that evoke and require student initiative and explicit reasoning...The graphic organizers are also beneficial in having students demonstrating self-knowledge... Wiggins and McTighe point out that “A student who really understands reveals self-knowledge. . . “ Organizational Moves (OM) Planning, organizing, monitoring both whiteboard space and ideas; statements and other moves that provide structure to the situation We also might want to split the goals up...assessment and enduring understanding. So specific and general type of shit. Topic Control (TC) Statements that influence the topic of discussion or direction of the work (looking at another side of an issue, getting back to the original topic, taking up a new topic) My only comment is regarding what we have seen in the class of teaching to diverse learners. . . How could we expand the assessment to include a larger diversity of students? Results/Discussion Distribution of Leadership Leadership was highly distributed, with all members of every group participating in multiple leadership roles. Even in a group (group 1) where a particular leader (A) was essentially elected and remained in that position throughout, leadership was shared among group members. However, group members participated in leadership in very different ways, with some group members avoiding some roles entirely while embracing others. This pattern is illustrated in tables 3 and 4 below, which show the distribution of leadership among group members, including the instructor, for the highest and lowest performing groups. Table 3: Distribution of leadership moves in group 1(* indicates a female participant)